Keep using those alt tags, Apple

[Doctor Q]

I spotted this HTML in e-mail Apple sent to some iTunes customers:
<img align="right" border="0" hspace="3" width="140" height="140" alt="Alt Tag Goes Here" src="http://a1.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/r10/Features/d5/cc/e7/dj.ekrfmrme.jpg">Perhaps the alt tag could have used a better value!

The alt text was clearly a placeholder that never got filled in. Apple leaves it null (alt="") for images without meaningful content, such as spacers and graphic borders, but Apple is usually pretty good about filling in alt text for real images. But I guess anybody can miss one now and then.

That made me think of checking Apple's home page to see if they used alt tags on all meaningful images. It turns out they do. So we'll give Apple an A- grade for the week.

[skoker]

Heh, that's great. Thanks for sharing.

[amacgenius]

Nice catch there Q - I didn't even think Apple used proper tags at all, but I guess I'm wrong.

[floyde]

They're probably moving to strict xhtml now? A site won't validate as strict if the alt attribute is ommited...

I'm sure the W3C had good intentions when they made the alt attribute obligatory, but I forsee a future in which devs will fill alt's with all sorts of crap just to comply with the standard :eek:

[mkrishnan]

I think Alt is a good thing. :)

And psssh, I heard that someone tried to replace "Alt Tag Goes Here" with the code for the alt tag, but the recursion led to an Infinite Loop! :eek: ;)

BTW, how much of the commercial internet actually validates out correctly? It seems like almost everyone takes shortcuts....

[Doctor Q]

I'm sure the W3C had good intentions when they made the alt attribute obligatory, but I forsee a future in which devs will fill alt's with all sorts of crap just to comply with the standard :eek:<img src="spacer.gif" alt="iPods on sale at bargain prices while supplies last. Visit www.reallycheapbargainstuff.com."><img src="topborder.jpg" alt="A horse walks into a bar...">

[cookie1105]

The think the apple site is not bad at all. It doesn't validate as html 4.01 transitional (7 errors) but they are only minor (i think??). CSS has 2 errors (also minor???). It has scaleable fonts, content and design separated, semantic markup & alt tags.....blah blah blah.

The design is decent, imho it is a very accessible site.

Please feel free to correct me if I have missed the point.:)